A SHORT TREATISE ON NAGA AND MANIPUR HISTORIES
Kaka D. Iralu
June 1, 2010

It is an obvious fact that if ignorance and prejudice rules in the minds of
two neighbors living next to one another, there can never be good neighborly
relationship between the two. Tragically, I think this is the Naga mindset in
relationship to most of her neighbors in the North East. The same however may
also be true about our neighbors in relation to us. One major reason for this
tragic state of affairs is primarily because of Indiafs divide and rule policy
to keep us divided and at one anotherfs throats so that she can quietly go on
exploiting and sucking away our mineral wealth from underneath our feet. India
has done this very effectively by keeping us ignorant of our own histories while
subtly permeating our minds and memories with Indian history that, in the first
place, has nothing to do with us. After all, neither Akbar nor Ashoka were North
Eastern Mongolian Kings to whom we owe any allegiance or historical fidelity.
Neither were the Mauryan or Mughal
dynasties of India part of our history in any sense. But we were made to study
these foreign histories as our own history right from our primary schools all
across our college and university studies. That being the case with most of
us, for all these years, we have been living as neighbors with very little historical
knowledge about one another.

It is therefore in the light of this tragic state of affairs that I wish to
give a brief historical treatise about Naga Manipur histories.

Space and readers time, will not permit me to give a detailed historical account.
What is presented here is just an outline focusing on some major events that
have shaped our histories from the ancient past to the present.

Ancient Naga and Manipur histories:

1. Naga history:

The Nagas, Kachins and Karens are considered as blood brothers who came in
the same migratory wave from Southern China during the building of the Great
Wall of China (403-221BC). Their forefathers probably ran away from the forced
labor that was used for building the wall. The Chinese have a word for the Nagas
which means gThe runaway people.h Before these events, their forefathers along
with the Kachins and Karens migrated from Mongolia along with the other Mongolian
Asian races in 2617 BC and entered the Yunan Province of China in 1385 BC.

This was after their migration across Turkistan and Tibet. Nagas do not posses
any written historical records about these events but are connected to this
historical events through their oral traditions and legends which are corroborated
by written documents of their neighbors who had learned the art of writing long
before them.( The Karen history by Saw Aung Hla; The Royal Karens of Burma by
D.M. Smeatom MA; The Travels of Marco Polo by John Measefield etc.)

The next mention of the Nagas inhabiting their present lands was done by the
Greek traveler Claudius Ptolemy when, in reference to Indian historical records,
he mentions the Nagas as gNagalogh in AD150. The Nagas were mentioned again
in some detail by the Chinese traveler Huan Tsang when he visited the Varman
Dynasty in Assam in 645AD.(For details see gThe Naga Sagah pp4&5). To cut
a long story short, by 1228 they were fighting fierce battles with King Sukapafs
Ahom army as they fought their way across the Patkai range of Nagaland to settle
down in their present settlements in Assam. In their cheaquered history of
neighborhood with the Ahoms of Assam, the Nagas fought with this kingdom for
nearly seven hundred intermittent years without surrendering one single Naga
village to Ahom suzerainty (1228- to the end of the 19th century).. As for their
neighborly relationship with their other neighbors like the Meeteis of Manipur
, Tripura and Cachar kingdoms, alas, they were almost all the times at war with
these neighbors. These wars were not for territorial gains but because of their
headhunting forays into these lands! The coming of the British in the early
part of the nineteenth century and especially the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826
was a defining moment in Naga Manipur relationship because the British supplied
their now Manipuri subjects with over 3000 muzzle loading guns and demanded
a yearly tribute of over Rs 300,000
from the Manipur king to the British Crown. The Manipuri kings freely used this
new weaponry for ransacking many Naga villages including Kohima village in 1852.They
also perhaps collected some taxes from some Naga villages and gave it to the
British as taxes of the Manipur kingdom to the British. Beyond this treacherous
coalition between the Manipur King and their British colonizers, there is not
one shred of historical evidence to show that the Naga ancestors ever asked
any Manipuri king for land to settle down and became Manipuri subjects or British
subjects or Indian subjects. On the contrary irrefutable historical reports
show that long before the Meeteis settled down in the present Imphal valley,
the Nagas were already firmly settled in the mountains and hills of what is
presently called the Indian and British
created Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh States and also Burma.

Writing about the Nagas (now put under the Manipur state by the British and
Indian colonizers), even as late as the end part of the nineteenth century,
Sir Robert Reid the Governor of Assam (1883-1941) wrote: gThe state of Manipur
consist of a central valley some 700 square miles in area surrounded by 8000
square miles of hills. In the valley there lived 300,000 Manipuris and a few
Hillman, while the hills are inhabited by 160,000 Hillman and no Manipuris.
The contrast between the almost fanatically strict Hindus of the valley and
the beef eating, dog eating tribesmen of the hills cannot be too strongly emphasized.
The boundaries of the state does not enclose a cultural unit.h P.B. Pemberton,
another British administrator writing in 1827 under the caption, A Singular
Race, wrote about the Naga tribes thus: gVarious attempts were made by the Rajah
of Manipur, Kachar and Tripperah to reduce this savages to a state of vassalage,
but uniformly without success. They steadily refused to acknowledge allegiance
to either power.h( Varrier Elwin, Nagas in the Nineteenth Century, p42). Sir
James Johnstone, Political Officer of Manipur, writing in the 1870fs also wrote:
gThere was a long boundary dispute between Manipur and the Naga Hills. The boundary
has been most arbitrarily settled by us when the survey was carried out, so
far as a certain point, beyond that it was vague. Manipur claimed territory
which we certainly did not possess, and which she had visited from time to time,
but did not actually hold in subjugation.h (Manipur and the Naga Hills, Sir
James Johnstone, p93) In the light of these historical facts, on August27, 1948,
when some Nagas of Manipur were staging a peaceful procession refusing to pay
taxes to the Manipur King and refusing to be a part of Manipur, they were fired
upon by the Assam Rifles. On that tragic day, Asusu Heponi, Modo Kholi and Mahrili
Lorhu were shot to death and another four were seriously injured.

2. Manipur History.

Some Kangleichas or Meeteis may object to the use of the word Manipur because
this Hindu word came to denote the original name of the Meetei kingdom Kangleipak
only in the 18th century when the 50th King of Manipur converted his whole kingdom
into a Hindu kingdom. The original Meeteis are not Aryans or Dravidians but
our own Mongolian race. King Meitingu (Garibaniwaz 1709-1748), who brought about
this change of name and religion, was fooled by some Brahmin Hindu Pundits into
believing that he was a true descendent of Arjuna of the Mahbarat. The present
word Manipur probably came from the name of a place called Mainpuri in Uttar
Pradesh which is associated with the Mahabarata.

Some modern historians like O. Tomba assert that the Manipur kingdom came into
existence only in the 14th century as the whole Imphal valley was under water
for nearly five centuries before that. Other historians like Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen,
quoting the Cheitharol Kumbaba, comes up with Kangleicha kings dating as far
back as 33 AD. If one were to accept Wankhemcha list of Manipur kings; from
the first Meetei King Pakhangba (33-154AD) to Bodchandra Singh (1941-1955AD)
there were 76 kings who had ruled Manipur. Whatever the case may be, the Manipur
kingdom has a great history behind it and were probably one of the first Mongolian
nations in the North Eastern sector of the south Asian regions to develop the
art of writing. Their original script called Meeteilon/Meeteiron had only 18
alphabets. They were also quite advanced in mathematics and astrology from a
very early period as compared to other neighboring nations. They were also great
horseman and the Polo game has its origin in Manipur or rather Kangleipak. Their
original religion which is called Sanamahi also resembles many Christian beliefs
like man being created in the image of God.

During the height of their history, some of their Kings (eg. Rajah Pamheiba)
had marched even to the borders of the Ava(Burmese) Kingdom. Also, the whole
of Kabaw(Kubo) valley was once under their suzerainty. In their cheaquered history,
they were also attacked by the Chinese in 1250 and the Burmese in 1819. They
were very badly defeated in this Burmese attack and sought shelter and help
from the many Naga tribes of the surrounding hills.

The present Manipuris of today are a mixed lot. This was because, though the
Meetai Kings soundly defeated three determined attacks on their kingdom by Low
caste Hindus and even Muslims in the 14, 16, and the17th centuries, their Kings
granted amnesty to these defeated foes and instead absorbed them into Meetei
society by giving them Meetei wives. These absorbed peoples are the Bishnupriyas
and the Pangans.

Most of them are of Bengal origin but have become Meeteis through intermarriage
and adoption of Meetei culture. These combined Manipuris as they are known today,
merged with the Indian Union in 1947. As for the rest of the Nagas who were,
against their wishes, dissected into the British and Indian created Manipur
state, they have been fighting for their sovereignty and independence along
with the rest of the Nagas in Nagaland, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Burma for
the past six decades.

Summary and conclusion:

Meeteis and Nagas are blood brothers having descended from a common Mongolian
ancestor. As for the Meeteifs present habitation in the Imphal valley, there
are two versions as to how that happened.

According to the Naga version, they are the younger brother of the Tankhuls
who decided to go and settle in the fertile plains of the
present Imphal valley. As they set out, they told their elder brother to always
set up a big bonfire in the mountains whenever they lighted their own bonfire
from the plains. This according to legends was to show others that they were
not alone in the valley but that they have an elder brother in the hills who
would come to their rescue in case they were attacked by others. Also it is
a fact that even as late as the 19th century, the Meetei King and Queen used
to ascend their thrones wearing Naga shawls and dress. This practice was seen
even by Sir James Johnstone as mentioned in his book on p 83.

As for the Meetei version, some offspringfs of King Pakhangbafs seven sons
decided to settle down in the hills and went away up to the hills. Now, whether
the descending theory is right or the ascending theory is right, Meeteifs and
Nagas are still blood brothers who know their own common origins and the boundaries
of their habitations. Therefore they must sit down together and settle their
territorial disputes by sticking to historical facts rather than listening to
or conforming to British or Indian boundary lines. This is because while we
are indigenous inhabitants of our lands, the British and Indians are foreigners
who do not own even an inch of our native lands.